Manaf v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2022-05-04
Court Decision / Holding: Bail granted; the petitioner to be released on bail on the following terms: bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties; no inducement, threats or promises to witnesses; travel outside the district/country without court permission; refrain from committing similar offences; bail to be cancelable if any condition is violated.
Final Disposition: The Bail Application is allowed; petitioner released on bail with specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Manaf, son of Naseer

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Anil K. Muhamed

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. SMT. Sreeja V, Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala bail petition concerns Manaf, accused no.2 in S.C. No.119 of 2022 pending in the Assistant Sessions Court at Muvattupuzha, challenging custody since 08.11.2021 on charges under sections 450, 394 read with 34 IPC for an alleged robbery at a rental residential house in EMS Nagar Vazhappilly Kara on 27 October 2021. The prosecution alleges that the accused and another entered with common intent to commit theft, capturing a mobile phone from CW1 and injuring CW2 and CW3 during the attempt to recover it. The petitioner contends there are no criminal antecedents, the final report is filed, and the trial would not commence soon, thus bail should be granted with stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, acknowledging the seriousness of the offences but noting the absence of antecedents and the filed final report with the case pending in S.C.No.119 of 2022. Relying on the long-standing principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the court, citing Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement, considered the circumstances and granted bail with conditions: bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties, no inducement or threats, travel restrictions without court permission, no future offences, and bail cancellable for breaches.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the CrPCSections 450, 394 r/w 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends absence of criminal antecedents, the final report is filed, and given the likelihood that the trial will not commence soon, bail should be granted with stringent conditions. The counsel argued that continuing custody serves no public interest and infringes on the right to fair trial.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, acknowledging the seriousness of the offences but noting lack of antecedents, a filed final report, and ongoing proceedings in S.C.No.119 of 2022; the prosecution stressed the need to balance the alleged gravity with the accuseds right to a fair trial and the lack of prior criminal history.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited as the underpinning authority for the principle that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to safeguard fair trial.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 3175 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:** MANAF AGED 34 YEARS SON OF NASEER, KALLUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, KAVUMKARA KARA, VELLOORKKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686669 BY ADV. ANIL K.MUHAMED ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV.SMT. SREEJA V, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.3175 of 2022 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.3175 of 2022 ------------------------------Dated this the 4[th ] day of May, 2022 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Petitioner is the accused in S.C. No.119 of 2022 on the file of Assistant Sessions court, Muvattupuzha. The above case is registered against the petitioner and another alleging offences punishable under Sections 450, 394, r/w 34 of IPC. Petitioner was arrested in connection with the above case on 08.11.2021 and he is in custody from that date onwards. 3.The prosecution case is that on 27.10.2021 at about 3 pm, the accused in this case and another in furtherance of their common intention to commit robbery, trespassed into the rental B.A.No.3175 of 2022 3 residential house of CW1 Chellappa at EMS Nagar Vazhappilly kara and committed theft of mobile phone from the hands of CW2 using force. When CW2 and CW3 tried to get back the mobile phone from accused, the accused pushed then down and CW2 and CW3 sustained injuries. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 08.11.2021 onwards. The counsel submitted that there is no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. The counsel also submitted that, since the final report is already filed and the trial in the case will not be scheduled in the near future, the petitioner may be released on bail. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner committed serious offences. It is B.A.No.3175 of 2022 4 true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. But no criminal antecedent is reported against the petitioner. The final report in this case is already filed and the matter is pending trial as S.C.No.119 of 2022. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since there is no criminal antecedents reported against the petitioner, I think the petitioner can be released on bail on stringent conditions. I also taken note of the fact that the petitioner is in custody from 08.11.2021 onwards. 5. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870),** after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is B.A.No.3175 of 2022 5 the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 6. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: 1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade B.A.No.3175 of 2022 6 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 5. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the B.A.No.3175 of 2022 7 jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** DM B.A.No.3175 of 2022 8 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3175/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE1 CERTIFIED TRUE COOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 07-04-2022 IN CRL. M. A. NO. 72 OF 2022 & CRL. M. A. NO. 82 OF 2022 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE